Skip to: Navigation | Content | Footer

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

The complaint followed an article published on Mail Online on 4 March 2017, headlined “Time to cool off! Happy (and hunky) Prince Harry enjoys a dip in the ocean as he and Meghan relax on the beach in Jamaica after his ‘wingman’s’ sun-drenched wedding.”

Author: News Desk

Posted on: 17 July 2017 08:25

IPSO upholds Prince Harry complaint against Mail Online

"The complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Prince Harry complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required Mail Online to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported that the complainant had recently attended a friend’s wedding in Jamaica. It was accompanied by photographs of the complainant wearing swimming shorts on a beach, at a beachside bar and in the sea.

The complainant said that these images had been taken in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and while he was engaged in private activities unconnected to his public role. The photographs showed him wearing swimwear on a private beach; he had been unaware that he was being photographed; and he had not consented to the images’ publication. The complainant considered that no public interest was served by the article.

Mail Online said that it had been provided with credible information that the complainant had been on a public beach at the time the photographs were taken, and it had published them in good faith. While it regretted that it had been misinformed, it did not consider that the photographs had revealed intrinsically private information. It also noted that they had been published widely in the US and in one UK magazine.

The Committee found that the complainant had been photographed in circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He had not consented to the images’ publication, and Mail Online had not sought to justify their publication in the public interest. Publishing photographs of the complainant engaged in private activities, without his knowledge and consent, represented a significant and unjustified intrusion in breach of Clause 2. The Committee upheld the complaint.

The complainant also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) but this was not upheld.

comments powered by Disqus

Most read on InPublishing

These are the most read stories on the InPublishing website over the last 14 days, in order from the top.

Articles

My Publishing Life – James Hewes

James Hewes
Posted on: 25 July 2017

Developments in tablet & mobile publishing – Q&A

Holger Kraemer and Laurent Gerniers
Posted on: 12 July 2017

An American In London

Ciar Byrne
Posted on: 27 July 2017

The Voice of Manchester

Peter Sands
Posted on: 27 July 2017

My Publishing Life – Adrian Hughes

Adrian Hughes
Posted on: 16 June 2017

Exceeding expectations

Ray Snoddy
Posted on: 27 July 2017

Tweetdeck

Martin Belam
Posted on: 27 July 2017

Taking digital in its stride

Jo Bowman
Posted on: 25 May 2017

Well, who saw that coming!

Liz Gerard
Posted on: 27 July 2017

Challenging times mean challenging the norms

Neil Fowler
Posted on: 27 July 2017

This list is based on data from Google Analytics, and is refreshed every 24 hours. (Last updated: 28/07/2017 06:21)

Find out more about

Featured job

Senior National Accounts Executive
Salary: Competitive
Marketforce
Canary Wharf, London

Featured in InPublishing Jobs

InPub Weekly: Sign-up

Click here to sign up for our free weekly email newsletter:

Sign up now!

Magazine registration

Publishing Partners Guide